She is wrong. Bachman’s speech should have been broadcast, because we all need to know that the emperor has no clothes.

RRKING watches . Catfight !!!

Oh man it’s on! The battle everyone’s been waiting for! The MSNBC host and that British dude who took Larry King’s job. Look out!

paulmdoro said:
Oh man it’s on! The battle everyone’s been waiting for! The MSNBC host and that British dude who took Larry King’s job. Look out!

I can’t imagine why CNN had Piers Morgan on last night. What was the goal? Exposure? That is a pretty august panel CNN has, and Piers simply diminished it.

The Real Royal King said:
I can’t imagine why CNN had Piers Morgan on last night. What was the goal? Exposure? That is a pretty august panel CNN has, and Piers simply diminished it.

Was Larry King ever on their State of the Union panels?

valkyrie101 said:
She is wrong. Bachman’s speech should have been broadcast, because we all need to know that the emperor has no clothes.

I agree. Much as repeated exposure has diminished Palin in the eyes of both Democrats and Republicans, last night’s performance could only shed light of Bachmann’s utter nutiness.

paulmdoro said:
Was Larry King ever on their State of the Union panels?

I honestly don’t remember. I think he did some post-speech interviews, but I don’t recall him being on a panel.

The Real Royal King said:
I can’t imagine why CNN had Piers Morgan on last night. What was the goal? Exposure? That is a pretty august panel CNN has, and Piers simply diminished it.

I disagree. I do think that perhaps Wolf shouldn’t have gone to Piers first in the successive segments, but obviously Mr. Morgan is informed and has thought about the issues — as evidenced by the above tweets — plus, along with Anderson and Wolf, he’s now the “face” of CNN.

CAT FIGHT!!!

paulmdoro said:
Was Larry King ever on their State of the Union panels?

AS TRRK said, I believe Larry may have hosted some panels of his own, but he didn’t appear as part of the TBPTOTV (or whatever is the acronym), but that’s likely because Larry may not have been interested and didn’t a lot of his shows originate from the West Coast, so he may not have been in New York on those nights.

The Real Royal King said:
I can’t imagine why CNN had Piers Morgan on last night. What was the goal? Exposure? That is a pretty august panel CNN has, and Piers simply diminished it.

Yes… I would say it was for exposure. He is a new commodity and CNN is trying to give him as much exposure as possible.

a national news network decided that they would give Michele Bachmann a job that her own party never did.

That’s incoherent.

Maybe CNN is pandering to the t/p network. Since Fox is Republican and MSNBC is Democrat, CNN would also like to have their own base in the t/p.

I ‘d say I have to agree with this guy Maddow. Its Fox’s shtick to be “fair and balanced”. CNN has no business being this partisan…

Magister said:
I disagree. I do think that perhaps Wolf shouldn’t have gone to Piers first in the successive segments, but obviously Mr. Morgan is informed and has thought about the issues — as evidenced by the above tweets — plus, along with Anderson and Wolf, he’s now the “face” of CNN.

In that context, I would agree. I cannot stand Wolf Blitzer. The man just aggravates the hell out me. I think it’s because he can be so groveling. The panel is very, very good, with the possible exception of Piers, but the only reason I was at CNN was for the Bachmann presentation. And, it didn’t disappoint.

I think this is the first good PR strategy to come out of CNN and MSNBC in a long while.

For a long while, MSNBC engaged in a war with FNC… but gained little ground (after an initial boost). IOW, they’ve plateaued, and no among of FNC bashing seems to move them much any more… and certainly doesn’t get any more newspapers to take notice.

Now, CNN is in a similar position… they need to regain their thrown, or at least make a play for second, and with Piers, we’ve seen him employ a similar “attack FOX” strategy. But at this point, it’s all old hat. What is he going to say that Olbermann, Maddow, Shultz, etc. hasn’t already said? At this point, attacking FOX gets a collective, “Who cares” from the viewers. “We’ve seen it before,” they say.

But this… this is a new strategy that could work.

FNC didn’t fight back, because they didn’t need to, so the fight only went so far. But a CNN vs MSNBC fight… that has potential go elevate both networks. If MSNBC starts picking arguments with CNN, and CNN returns in kind, then the two gain publicity, notoriety, and increase their ratings… potentially drawing from the FNC audience, interested in seeing what it’s all about.

I don’t know if they’ve figured this out yet, and this might just be a lone squabble among two hosts over a specific situation. But as a strategy for gaining audience, I think it has strong potential. IMO, an ongoing fight between some of their evening hosts could raise both ships, benefiting both networks in the long run.

With Keith gone, it’s up to Rachel to try and fill the scowling gap.

“and no among of FNC bashing”

Should read, “and no amount of FNC bashing”… dang spell check.

Like it or not. The Tea Party is a political movement that is here and they have a voice. I think the last election showed that they are here to play and I think they earned the right to have their voices heard.

I think the idea of the Tea Party response was to show that they are not solely connected to one party. They are a gathering of Dems and Republicans who think both parties stink on ice.

Maddow, get over yourself.

As a strategy for the Tea Party, having a secondary speech was equally brilliant. The Tea Party is branded by the left as a simple extension of the Republican Party… a group Nancy Pelosi would call “AstroTurf.” However, by putting forth their own speech, independent of the Republicans, they show themselves to be outside of the Republican tent, making the argument, “Well you guys are just Republicans,” harder to argue.

Very clever. Although, let’s be honest, I’m sure far-left groups have done the same in the past. Does KOS, MoveOn, etc. not release their own SOTU speech? And if all they do is release a written speech, not a broadcast speech (via YouTube or whatever), well… that’s their fault for apparently not buying a camera!

I cant imagine why MSNBC had Madcow, Shultzy, Tingles, O’Donnell and The token Black, Robinson on as journalists…Now that a joke

ImNotBlue said:
As a strategy for the Tea Party, having a secondary speech was equally brilliant. The Tea Party is branded by the left as a simple extension of the Republican Party… a group Nancy Pelosi would call “AstroTurf.” However, by putting forth their own speech, independent of the Republicans, they show themselves to be outside of the Republican tent, making the argument, “Well you guys are just Republicans,” harder to argue.

Very clever. Although, let’s be honest, I’m sure far-left groups have done the same in the past. Does KOS, MoveOn, etc. not release their own SOTU speech? And if all they do is release a written speech, not a broadcast speech (via YouTube or whatever), well… that’s their fault for apparently not buying a camera!

However, the Republicans have long proclaimed they are a Big Tent Party. The proclamation has often been a “Wink-Wink, Nod-Nod, Know What I Mean?, Know What I Mean?” matter, to be sure, but it has long been an important theme. The fact that the Tea Partiers are allowed in the ten to get a bottle of Witch Hazel, but not to dine, destroys the entire Big Tent image. That might not be a bad thing, of course.

I do understand the Republican concern. There are a number of scenarios in which a Tea Party As Third Party could become a reality. That would almost certainly destroy the Republican party. That might no be a bad thing, of course, although I like a number of Republicans. Look at Utah. It is likely to kick out a second very conservative Republican senator because the Tea Party is effectively replacing the Republican Party.

Bill Henricks for Utah 2012!

“The fact that the Tea Partiers are allowed in the ten .”

“That might no be a bad thing,”

I think the problem is the Republican party has become too much like the Democrats..Soft on crime, soft on illegal immigration, spend too much, pick winners and losers in business, and throw more money at education.. these policies dont work. The Tea party will be an alternative to the republicans unless the see the error in their ways.

The Real Royal King said:
However, the Republicans have long proclaimed they are a Big Tent Party. The proclamation has often been a “Wink-Wink, Nod-Nod, Know What I Mean?, Know What I Mean?” matter, to be sure, but it has long been an important theme. The fact that the Tea Partiers are allowed in the ten to get a bottle of Witch Hazel, but not to dine, destroys the entire Big Tent image. That might not be a bad thing, of course.

Not surprisingly, you’re wrong about this. First off, both parties claim to have a “big tent,” while examples of a “small tent” can easily be found (the Democrats have a “big tent” that didn’t include former VP Candidate, Joe Lieberman, and so on).

Secondly, you make an assumption that it was the Republican “big tent” which excluded the Tea Party, when it’s quite apparently the other way. The Republicans invited the Tea Party into their tent, but instead the TP said, “No, we’ll just visit, thank you.” It was the Tea Party who decided not to sit down… not the other way around.

I do understand the Republican concern. There are a number of scenarios in which a Tea Party As Third Party could become a reality. That would almost certainly destroy the Republican party. That might no be a bad thing, of course, although I like a number of Republicans. Look at Utah. It is likely to kick out a second very conservative Republican senator because the Tea Party is effectively replacing the Republican Party. Bill Henricks for Utah 2012!

Perhaps… a third party run would almost certainly guarantee a Democratic victory, at least in a national election. However, there simply is no evidence that it’s the Republicans keeping the Tea Party at an arm’s length… while there is evidence of the Tea Party doing such.

I may never utter the following sentence again, but here goes:

I agree with Piers Morgan.

The Lantern of Truth said:
RRKING watches . Catfight !!!

I’m not sure Maddow counts as female… :D

All right- now we have a fight going.

Let’s watch these two battle it out.

MrDrawingguy said:
I’m not sure Maddow counts as female… :D

Ouch!

Oh,snap! Hello!

Rachel Maddow whining like a child?

I am shocked!!! Shocked I tell you!!!!!

Rachel is right as usual. But I am looking forward to Dennis Kucinich’s response to the 2012 SOTU on CNN.

I think the best thing that the Tea Party has done is pave the way for the potential end of the two party system. Maybe we can finally get a point where the Dems and Republicans won’t be the only game in town. I’m all for that.

Tony Westover said:
Rachel Maddow whining like a child?

I am shocked!!! Shocked I tell you!!!!!

Says the guy who has Tucker Carlson on his FB without irony of any kind.

bealzebubba said:
I think the best thing that the Tea Party has done is pave the way for the potential end of the two party system. Maybe we can finally get a point where the Dems and Republicans won’t be the only game in town. I’m all for that.

Teabaggers=Republicans

Still very much the two party system.

MrDrawingguy said:
I’m not sure Maddow counts as female… :D

Nice Ron Paul action figures. Tee Hee.

Color Me Badd said:
Rachel is right as usual. But I am looking forward to Dennis Kucinich’s response to the 2012 SOTU on CNN.

Will he give it from a flying saucer?

Bawahaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

Color Me Badd said:
Nice Ron Paul action figures. Tee Hee.

Thanks, did yah see the animation?…. :D
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-2oG_rWbY0

ImNotBlue said:
Not surprisingly, you’re wrong about this. First off, both parties claim to have a “big tent,” while examples of a “small tent” can easily be found (the Democrats have a “big tent” that didn’t include former VP Candidate, Joe Lieberman, and so on).

Secondly, you make an assumption that it was the Republican “big tent” which excluded the Tea Party, when it’s quite apparently the other way. The Republicans invited the Tea Party into their tent, but instead the TP said, “No, we’ll just visit, thank you.” It was the Tea Party who decided not to sit down… not the other way around.

Perhaps… a third party run would almost certainly guarantee a Democratic victory, at least in a national election. However, there simply is no evidence that it’s the Republicans keeping the Tea Party at an arm’s length… while there is evidence of the Tea Party doing such.

Yes, I’m sure that’s why Bachmann did not get the committee assignment she so vigorously sought.

The Real Royal King said:
Yes, I’m sure that’s why Bachmann did not get the committee assignment she so vigorously sought.

Excellent point. Bachmann not getting a committee position that she wanted, clearly equates to the ENTIRE REPUBLICAN PARTY rejecting the Tea Party.

Yes, fine logic.

*rolls eyes*

I hope you have big hands, Royal… you’re really grasping at straws.

Was Jason Biggs up against Bachmanns retort so he knew nobody would tune in for his fawning slobbering love fest?

I see……….

Color Me Badd said:
Teabaggers=Republicans Still very much the two party system.

TEABAGEE = DEMOCRAT

Piers Morgan should go back to the U.K. or Canada or where ever he’s from & take Ricky Gervias with him.They both suck

The Real Royal King said:
Yes, I’m sure that’s why Bachmann did not get the committee assignment she so vigorously sought.

it’s possible it was because it was the intelligence committee. maybe if she wanted the shiny objects committee they would have given her that.

CNN is pandering. Like mentioned, I don’t think they would be giving airtime from someone on the far left (like Bernie Sanders) airtime to respond live to SOTU.

treecutter said:
TEABAGEE = DEMOCRAT

Looky here, a clever teabagger. ;)

writer said:
With Keith gone, it’s up to Rachel to try and fill the scowling gap.

Yep, grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr

ImNotBlue said:
I think this is the first good PR strategy to come out of CNN and MSNBC in a long while.

For a long while, MSNBC engaged in a war with FNC… but gained little ground (after an initial boost). IOW, they’ve plateaued, and no among of FNC bashing seems to move them much any more… and certainly doesn’t get any more newspapers to take notice.

Now, CNN is in a similar position… they need to regain their thrown, or at least make a play for second, and with Piers, we’ve seen him employ a similar “attack FOX” strategy. But at this point, it’s all old hat. What is he going to say that Olbermann, Maddow, Shultz, etc. hasn’t already said? At this point, attacking FOX gets a collective, “Who cares” from the viewers. “We’ve seen it before,” they say.

But this… this is a new strategy that could work.

FNC didn’t fight back, because they didn’t need to, so the fight only went so far. But a CNN vs MSNBC fight… that has potential go elevate both networks. If MSNBC starts picking arguments with CNN, and CNN returns in kind, then the two gain publicity, notoriety, and increase their ratings… potentially drawing from the FNC audience, interested in seeing what it’s all about.

I don’t know if they’ve figured this out yet, and this might just be a lone squabble among two hosts over a specific situation. But as a strategy for gaining audience, I think it has strong potential. IMO, an ongoing fight between some of their evening hosts could raise both ships, benefiting both networks in the long run.

I think you could be on to something. It’s an interesting thought if nothing else.

stephenpyle said:
I think you could be on to something. It’s an interesting thought if nothing else.

Thank you.

I liked Rachel Maddow better when she was Andy Dick.

MrDrawingguy said:
I’m not sure Maddow counts as female… :D

or what the gender differences actually are. ;-}

As a rule I like Rachel but IMO she’s dead wrong on this. CNN has every right to decide their programing and Morgan makes a very valid point.

You probably won’t see this reported, so here goes…

State of The Union Ratings: Fox News Channel Dominates
2011 SOTU Address Ratings:
• FNC: 4,960,000 in Total Viewers / 1,634,000 in A25-54
• CNN: 2,984,000 in Total Viewers /1,200,000 in A25-54
• MSNBC: 2,504,000 in Total Viewers / 836,000 in A25-54
2011 Post-Speech Analysis Ratings:
• FNC: 5,444,000in Total Viewers / 1,756,000 in A25-54
• CNN: 3,010,000 in Total Viewers / 1,230,000 in A25-54
• MSNBC: 2,357,000in Total Viewers / 739,000 in A25-54
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

Rachael’s gayness is what makes her cool, I guess. But she is a rising star, and all the insults won’t change the fact that she has talent.

Among those who watch cable news, FOX is king of the ratings. Though it is worth noting that if you combine the two nasty liberal networks together, it is just a touch above FOX by itself. That is a good balance, and the reason that our national dialogue is so competitive.

I hope the “genders” will one day ask for Rachel Madcow’s gender proof someday; my neighbor thinks she’s a tranny

LOGICandREASON said:
I hope the “genders” will one day ask for Rachel Madcow’s gender proof someday; my neighbor thinks she’s a tranny

How did I know you live in that kind of a neighborhood.

Do you think Maddow wears her strapped Dildo while she is on air???

Bobby Levit said:
Do you think Maddow wears her strapped Dildo while she is on air???

I heard she is monogomous and keeps it at home. Unlike Billo.

Bobby Levit said:
Do you think Maddow wears her strapped Dildo while she is on air???

No need to get all breathless and excited of the thought Bobby. I haven’t heard she’s bi.

LOGICandREASON said:
I hope the “genders” will one day ask for Rachel Madcow’s gender proof someday; my neighbor thinks she’s a tranny

I really don’t think she’s old enough to have tranchildren.

Oh, Damn…Oh Shit… I thought the name was Ralph.. I didn’t know the name was Rachel. I thought that was a joke. So he, I mean she, really is a girl. Damn.. She reminds me of that character from SNL called “Pat” remember her? But Ralph, I mean Rachel, makes a cuter guy than “Pat” so says my wife.

Forgive me, I hardly ever watch MSNBC except to occasionally watch my favorite evil clown Keith Obiteme’s promos for FNC. But he’s gone now so there’s no need watch anymore.

Lipstick on a Pig?

BatBoy said:
You probably won’t see this reported, so here goes…
http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/

Wouldn’t it be easier to buy a billboard rather than spam every post on this website, oh great Fox promoter?

Rachel is right, it’s stupid decisions like the one by crappy editors at CNN that give fringe people looking for publicity a national voice. Another reason we have to start blaming the folks really responsible for all the turmoil in Congress — the media.

Bobby Levit said:
Do you think Maddow wears her strapped Dildo while she is on air???

Errr, I don’t really spend a lot of time wondering about people’s sex lives. Should I wonder if you dream of having Liberty_Hound slide sticks of butter up your butt while watching Glenn Beck?

I’m not going to, but maybe its the kind of thing you wonder about……

Y’all boys spend way too much time being fascinated by other people’s sex life. Maybe if you were fascinated by your own….you’d have one.

I can see 2016 from my window. said:
Errr, I don’t really spend a lot of time wondering about people’s sex lives. Should I wonder if you dream of having Liberty_Hound slide sticks of butter up your butt while watching Glenn Beck?

I’m not going to, but maybe its the kind of thing you wonder about……

Y’all boys spend way too much time being fascinated by other people’s sex life. Maybe if you were fascinated by your own….you’d have one.

I wasn’t commenting on Ralph’s I mean Rachel’s sex life. I just didn’t know he, I mean she was a girl. I don’t know if he, I mean if she is gay or not and I don’t care. I was commenting more of on appearances. My wife says she make a cuter guy but I wouldn’t know.

And that stick of butter commit was bit disgusting don’t you think. It boarders on hate speech don’t you think. That’s right, I remember, it’s ok for liberals the spew the vile crap. It’s never hate speech when they say it. Or they have a justification for it. I understand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_%28Saturday_Night_Live%29

So what journalistic decision did MSNBC make when it allowed Rachael Maddow, a commentator and opinion disseminator, and more to the point, a person without a degree in journalism, to host a major news story such as the President’s State of the Union Address?

Paleoconservatarian said:
So what journalistic decision did MSNBC make when it allowed Rachael Maddow, a commentator and opinion disseminator, and more to the point, a person without a degree in journalism, to host a major news story such as the President’s State of the Union Address?

MSNBC makes journalistic decisions? Wow.

While I usually don’t give Michelle Bachmann any of my attention for fear of her forcing her religion on me as she is so often prone to do, I was curious enough to watch her response on CNN. I was a bit surprised, but she actually made some excellent points, which apparently has been lost on most of those posting here who are sadly more focused on Maddow’s sexual preferences. Although the Tea Party has been led astray by many of its current leaders, they look best when they come back to Ron Paul’s talking points. Bachmann sounded like she had been reading from Dr. Paul’s playbook, and as a result, her response was much stronger than Ryan’s.

I liked that CNN broadcast Michelle Bachmann. Gave us more media fodder. Quite amusing. Rachel Maddow should be pleased because here is fresh material just waiting for her to tear apart…which she did…brilliantly…great ratings! All of you who question her sexuality: She’s 100-fold more man than you…you’re just jealous!

LarryB said:
While I usually don’t give Michelle Bachmann any of my attention for fear of her forcing her religion on me as she is so often prone to do, I was curious enough to watch her response on CNN. I was a bit surprised, but she actually made some excellent points, which apparently has been lost on most of those posting here who are sadly more focused on Maddow’s sexual preferences. Although the Tea Party has been led astray by many of its current leaders, they look best when they come back to Ron Paul’s talking points. Bachmann sounded like she had been reading from Dr. Paul’s playbook, and as a result, her response was much stronger than Ryan’s.

I disagree that her response was stronger than Ryan’s. I thought her “specifics” were already addressed in the President’s speech. Her “scientific” graph was laughable, at best…no statistics, just large bars with percentages on top. That’s not real. How do I know? I work with graphs and statistics for a living. I DO agree with your assessment of Rand Paul. I really expected the Tea Party would have thought to invite him (or Rubio) before Bachmann. Paul and Rubio should be the Tea Party face, if they are to win the centrist votes. Just sayin’….

yahhn

If Michelle Bachmann is not a legitimate enough political force to justify allowing her to speak FOR her and her side, why does her network unrelentingly devote so much time speaking AGAINST her and her side? Seriously, the inconsistency and hypocrisy over at A-Mess-NBC never ceases to amaze……

Who the hell put Rachel Maddow is charge of cable broadcasting??????

Happy to see Keith O gone, now fire about 5 more and MSNBC might turn into something reasonable to watch, doubtful, but possible.